Yes, it is the precedent. 2001 was run under the old lines, and, new lines were drawn for the 2002 special for the remaining three years of the four-year terms.

I think you mean 1991 and 1992. The first Mississippi guburnatorial election (when the Legislature would normally be elected) of the 2000s was in 2003. I doubt Mississippi would have been required to hold a special election in 2002 to just move the effectiveness of redistricting one year earlier, as some states have four-year terms where some legislators would have last been elected in 2000 and would serve until 2004.

I think you mean 1991 and 1992. The first Mississippi guburnatorial election (when the Legislature would normally be elected) of the 2000s was in 2003. I doubt Mississippi would have been required to hold a special election in 2002 to just move the effectiveness of redistricting one year earlier, as some states have four-year terms where some legislators would have last been elected in 2000 and would serve until 2004.

The Mississippi Constitution requires redistricting every 10 years, in the year ending in 2, and permits redistricting at other times. A federal district court ruled last year that was valid, and so the 2001 elections could use the existing districts. The court said that if the legislature drew districts this year, they would then consider whether special elections should be held.

Of course...there's an unholy alliance in the south between black Democrats and Republicans.

These racial packing districts tend to hurt the Democratic party and democracy. One rare exception might be Louisiana, where they might have tried for a 6-0 map without the requirement to make a black district.

Of course...there's an unholy alliance in the south between black Democrats and Republicans.

Not as common as it's made out to be, fwiw. More often, the black democrats are uninvolved bystanders who coincidentally benefit from Republican mapmakers because it's convenient to make the legally-required VRA districts to be the Dem-packed districts their gerrymander needs.

The only time actual collusion happened in the Georgia Assembly was in the creation of the maps used 92-94; once they saw the electoral aftermath, the leaders of the black caucus were very apologetic to the rest of the party.

Of course...there's an unholy alliance in the south between black Democrats and Republicans.

Not as common as it's made out to be, fwiw. More often, the black democrats are uninvolved bystanders who coincidentally benefit from Republican mapmakers because it's convenient to make the legally-required VRA districts to be the Dem-packed districts their gerrymander needs.

The only time actual collusion happened in the Georgia Assembly was in the creation of the maps used 92-94; once they saw the electoral aftermath, the leaders of the black caucus were very apologetic to the rest of the party.

Yeah, the blacks in Georgia were pretty good during this cycle. I think one of the black Democratic leaders in the Assembly threatened to support primary challengers to any Democrats who voted for the GOP maps.

If increasing the number of Black seats is considered a worthy goal, then why is any more problematic to eliminate White Democratic districts than White Republican districts?

It's not, in and of itself. What sickens me is when Black Democrats enable Republican gerrymanders, either for this purpose or to shore up their existing incumbents.

Why the vitriol over something that, like I said before, happens so rarely? Besides, it's not like white democrats don't collaborate with Republicans on redistricting just as often; they're just more likely to switch parties in the process.